-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
nssp patching code #2000
nssp patching code #2000
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
One issue with generating duplicate data, and a couple clarifying questions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks good to me. The only required change before merging is moving the hostname to a param and not including it in the actual template.
sftp.get(remote_file_name, local_file_path, callback=callback_for_filename) | ||
logger.info("Transfer finished", remote_file_name=remote_file_name, local_file_path=local_file_path) | ||
num_files_transferred += 1 | ||
ssh.close() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
suggestion (optional): You could wrap this section in a with ssh.open_sftp() as sftp:
to avoid this close()
. It won't change the behavior but it might make maintenance/change less error-prone.
Description
Add patching feature to nssp.
One detail that set this implementation apart from most of our other indicators is that nssp data comes in our db as weekly form instead of daily.
Basically, all weekly data coming in to our db has the
issue_date
column always marked as the first date of the epiweek that the reporting date falls into, rather than the reporting date itself. For example, I query nssp data from our api that was just put into db on July 5th 2024 and got something like this:Note the issue is
2024-06-30
despite this data coming in on July 5th. It's because2024-06-30
is the start date of epiweek202427
, so any data coming in that week will be marked under that issue date.Furthermore, the reason why we use this directory format is because of this
batch_issue_format
implementation in acquisition, which demands folder format to beissue_yyyymmdd
including for patches of weekly data.Fixes